Jump to content


Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can you expand on this instead of just saying "revisionist history"? I studied history, so I'm not working from a place of total ignorance here, but I also know there are nuances I didn't capture in that little paragraph. If I'm mistaken about some of those historical references, I'd love to know which ones so I can correct myself. But overall those historical points don't matter as much as the big picture which is that there is a problem with having 2 Senators for each state across the board. California has 40 million residents, and Wyoming has less than 600,000 residents, and yet they both have 2 Senators. We can aim to have a Senate that isn't 100 percent proportional to populations (so that rural states aren't totally overshadowed), while still avoiding THAT massive of a representational gap.
  2. I think when we look at how our government and political system were established, we have to remember that something that was once considered acceptable (or even progressive) in the 18th century may not be applicable in the modern world. I think it was Jefferson who even suggested that the constitution should expire every x amount of years and be replaced with a new one. It's probably for the best that they didn't go that far, but it's clear that the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to adapt with changes in society over time. This is of course why they set a structure in place to amend the constitution, but the founding fathers never foresaw the sheer level of divisive politics that would eventually make it so difficult to amend the constitution through the system they established. It's not insulting to say that maybe the founding fathers didn't get it all right the first time around, so criticism should be fair game. I think there are three major problems with our political system resulting from the outdated nature of our constitution: 1) The Electoral College; 2) The makeup of our upper chamber of Congress - two senators per state; and 3) Gerrymandering. The Electoral College was established as an extra protection against dangerous populist leaders being elected President. However, that is clearly no longer the case. Nowadays, the Electoral College is simply a formality (faithless electors are exceedingly rare), so the legacy of the Electoral College is that presidential elections are more like a game than a true national mandate - and this game focuses heavily on specific (swing) states. If we eliminate the EC presidential candidates will no longer be incentivized to essentially ignore most states during the general election. EC proponents claim that eliminating the EC means that only the most populous states will receive attention, but I don't see any convincing reason why that would be the case. Democratic candidates would find value in campaigning in more rural states they were previously ignoring, and Republicans would find it valuable to campaign more in more liberal areas. After all, without the EC the national vote will be all that matters, so a candidate would want ANY increase in voters in any part of the country. As for the makeup of the Senate - it's a huge issue that each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population. At the time of the signing of our constitution, this made some sense. Mostly because this was the only way to appease to the more rural southern states who were afraid the northern states would have too much influence. In the modern day this has to change. Our state borders were drawn pretty arbitrarily and sometimes were drawn specifically for political reasons. For example, North and South Dakota were established as separate states partially because Republicans at the time knew that region would mostly elect Republicans. The founding fathers never foresaw the massive industrial growth that would later occur and cause such a large increase in population in our urban centers. And of course that leaves gerrymandering, which has been a problem for a long time. It's a huge strain on our political system, which leaves many people feeling like their votes don't matter and also leads to a Congress that is politically skewed and not representative of the nation at large. The Constitution leaves it to the states to draw our congressional districts, which means gerrymandering can technically be solved through reform at the state level. In reality, however, when a party that is benefiting from gerrymandering also controls a state's government, they will do whatever they can to stomp down reform efforts. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment aimed at political/electoral reform which would address the 3 points I mentioned here, as well as addressing true campaign finance reform, but obviously that's a bit of a pipe dream.
  3. ^ To be fair, I've always thought it was a bit of a strange choice for Bernie to grab onto the socialist moniker so strongly. Bernie is not a true "socialist" by definition. Despite his criticisms of capitalism (which are rightful criticisms if you ask me), he is not proposing to completely overturn the economic system. He wants to eliminate (or at least limit) the harmful aspects of capitalism through strong social programs and regulation. It'd be more accurate if he called himself a Social Democrat. But the average person in the US is unfamiliar with the difference since our politics have moved so far to the right over the past 5 or so decades.
  4. It's so silly when people attack Bernie for making money selling books. Bernie isn't preaching about abolishing all forms of commerce. If you write a book, you can sell a book and make money from it (yes, even in horrifying socialist dystopias like Denmark ). But mayyyybe the people who do makes lots of money from selling those books could pay higher taxes so that society as a whole can benefit.
  5. I don't think Bernie is economically illiterate. He's been pretty up front about the fact that nearly everyone's taxes will have to be increased in order for his policies to be applied. Many other candidates are proposing very expensive reforms while also claiming they can cut middle class taxes.
  6. I'm totally okay with it. We've needed a bridge there for a while and I'm just happy it's FINALLY happening. We don't need to be spending extra money on an extravagant design for this sort of thing (imo).
  7. This is pretty much a total guess, but if I were a betting man I'd say this lot would be a safe bet for where they're going to build it. EDIT: whoops, I somehow totally missed the blog post that literally pointed out where the site will be. I was so close!
  8. I hope the lesser candidates start dropping out soon so we can start having some debates that are more meaningful and less crowded. I'm interested to see Steve Bullock (governor of Montana) participate in a debate.
  9. ^ I mean, for a long time he has been very well-known as a businessman who doesn't pay his contractors, so it makes sense.
  10. Ideally, I'd love retail frontage all around the footprint of that hypothetical project posted by KJP. However, if that's not possible, I'd prioritize Superior and W. 6th over W. 3rd. Superior is such a major street through downtown and it's currently a bit pathetic how much of a deadzone it is. And W. 6th already has some decent activity, but only for a couple blocks, so I'd love to see that activity capitalized and expanded. W. 3rd, on the other hand, almost seems beyond saving in that regard.
  11. When I said "some Indians fans" I'm putting a big emphasis on the *some* haha
  12. I'm sure some Indians fans will be eager to get a condo in that building, considering the views of Progressive Field! Can't wait to see some renderings!
  13. ^ Why did the original renderings show that building with a refaced wall? It was shown with new retail frontage (large windows and at least one door) facing the new square. I was very excited for that part of the project.
  14. I like the look of the panels. And I don't mind that the garage doesn't match the tower. My only criticism is that they should've at least changed the ugly pale red beams in the parking structure. They should've repainted them in brown hues that would match the panels in the tower.
  15. Thanks KJP! I knew it was going to be industrial space but was having a hard time finding a site plan. I do wish the Phase I building would be built closer to Madison with parking in the back, but I guess beggars can't be choosers for this type of development. I'm just really happy to see new industrial construction in Cleveland since so many industrial companies have been moving out to the suburbs lately.
  • Create New...